Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

Ana Palacio, a former Spanish foreign minister and former Senior Vice President of the World Bank, is a member of the Spanish Council of State, a visiting lecturer at Georgetown University, and a member of the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on the United States.

If Europe is so strong on cooperation, let it adopt a whole world view rather than on US or China. An area that cries out for cooperation if the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system, one of the main culprits of the 10 year old financial crisis.
One way of dealing with this U.S. dollar based unstable system is to seriously study the feasibility of adopting a carbon monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person, which would bring the world closer to staving off the looming climate catastrophe.
Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" has made the beginning of the studying the conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such new global governance system. Stated a noted climate advocate: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011

Ana Palacio seems to express a strong belief in the universal superiority of the EU's institutional DNA, that the reader should probably understand as deriving from the superiority of the european cultural DNA, itself deriving from the superiority of the european population's DNA. At this point the european elites should find material to build bridges with the european populists, that cling to basically the same beliefs in institutional, cultural and population superiority but at an ethnico-local level.

ClubMed perhaps in the morbid fear of G3 = Berlin + Big Bear + Beijing
Hence, The Anglosphere seems safe.
With European Union memberships.
For America Britain Canada.
And Euro as the Mother Currency.
And NATO as the Mother Superior.
Ana dreams as she writes.

Ana Palacio fears the decline of the West may well be inevitable, with the US under Trump gradually losing "its place as the global hegemon", propelling China to unipolar hegenomy. She hints what a "Chinese-led order" would look like by highlighting "events" in past months that could provide a clue. At the same time she also calls for EU leadership to salvage the current world order.
In July, Vietnam had reportedly terminated a gas-drilling expedition within its exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea, following strong protests from China. The government in Hanoi ordered a subsidiary of the Spanish oil company Repsol to suspend oil drilling activities it began a month earlier and leave the area. Repsol has spent about $300m on developing the field so far, and observers were dismayed that Vietnam had backed down so quickly.
Apparently China had exercised pressure by canceling "a joint China-Vietnam security meeting" and threatened to attack Vietnamese bases in the Spratley Islands if the drilling didn't stop. Beijing claims almost all of the South China Sea, including reefs and islands also contested by other nations. "Unable to rely on American support, Vietnam kowtowed to the Chinese." The author describes it as "a victory for naked power – and a defeat for shared rules."
A month ago China's most influential dissident and civil rights activist, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo died, while serving an 11-year prison term for "subversion" - he called for an end to one-party rule and the introduction of multi-party democracy. Although he was moved to a hospital, he was denied permission to receive treatment abroad for his advanced liver cancer. His widow, Liu Xia, who has been under house arrest for several years, had not been seen since the funeral.
The author says, Liu died a week after the G20 summit in Hamburg in July. Far from condemning China's cruel treatment, world leaders' silence was deafening. Beijing's calculations were correct. "No one raised Liu’s name publicly during the G20 meeting." A few leaders "offered only anodyne messages of condolence," but no major Western leader publicly denounced Beijing, because " Nobody wanted to rock the Chinese-powered boat."
The reasons for not making a hubbub are economic concern. The EU has not yet recovered from the 2008 global financial crisis, and China had turned out to be an economic white knight. It is the EU's second-largest trading partner after the US, and it has become "a key source of direct investment.". This has tipped the balance further towards China and its market-friendly authoritarian model of development has become widely acceptable. This rightly shows how business interests prevail over human rights issues. The impact of such reaction to China from the West in no way helps human rights activists like Liu in the mainland and in Hong Kong. "The sad truth today is that if Europe does not speak up, nobody will."
But the author says this kowtowing to China would do much harm to the West, because it would only undermine our "rules-based system," which ensures peace and stability between countries "through shared norms, interests, and values." The EU should play a "critical role" in championing for humanity and integrity. Its "well-enforced laws, technological competence, educated population, and broad cultural influence" are best qualifications for leadership. And many look to Europe for one, as Trump's feckless presidency turns out to be a huge disappointment.
Trump's "America First" stance is both "short-sighted" and harmful. "If this is a permanent condition, there can be little hope for a rules-based international order." But there is still hope that his administration would not go against the grain and that he might not be around for long. Nevertheless Europe "must tend to that flame" in uncertain times, by promoting "human rights or institutional approaches at a reasonable cost." China has spent a fortune in recent years to project “soft power” abroad in an effort to play a leading role on the world stage, taking advantage of the disarray Western democracies find themselves in. The author says, a "China-led transaction-based world order would have clear winners and losers – and the latter would far outnumber the former. Europe must do what it can to prevent that outcome, balancing ambition with realism, and courage with caution." It remains to be seen whether the Franco-German alliance will be the well-oiled machine that drives the European project forward.

if you can't beat them, join them... search for Mandarin language teachers in your city, if not for your children, certainly for your grand-children. You might perhaps enable some adjustments in the thinking of top Chinese officials in Beijing, if you make recommendations in their native language.

The hypocrisy is thick, so it's easy to criticize, but the answers are few. The EU has enough on its plate internally before it can lead in the American or Chinese sense.

But it's not as if the leadership of the "world order" in the recent past was that good. Under Bush, of course, we wrecked Iraq and Afghanistan, seeded a wave of terrorism, and did not even have the pretense that rules would apply to us.

Under Obama, we pressed hard on concepts such as legitimacy or rules-based-order, but with tortured definitions that had to fit into the confines of "American Exceptionalism", and turn a blind eye to the egregious abuses of the actual practices of the foreign policy arms engaging in "leadership". The bottom line was that, under what was surely more enlightened leadership, we wrecked Libya and Syria, seeded another wave or terrorism, and sent refugees to the EU with disastrous consequences there.

So one can't help seeing terms such as "rules based order" the same way as sugar drinks in cheap paper boxes with tantalizing labels claiming "33% real juice !".

And of course it gets worse. Now with Trump, there's no telling where the triumvirate of generals currently supervising the government will focus their attention.

In the best case: nowhere.

For the next few years, the most realistic approach is to act defensively. Make an honest admission of the shortcomings so they can be fixed in the near future if we are fortunate enough to have sane national governments.

That means working up the courage to admit when the reality of continental or world leadership fell short of the rhetoric. That is enough of a task to keep busy for a few years.

The virtues of Europe leading the global world are not echoed in the economic front. Economics 101 teaches us about supply and demand. Adam Smith's market doctrine is based on supply and demand. The underlying axiom is country X produces good X and is bought by currency X belonging to country X. If country Y wanted good X it has to change its currency Y into currency X to buy good X. That is why a Euro cannot directly buy goods from the US until it is changed into a US dollar hence Exchange Rate. But for Africa, Latin America, Asia that is not the case as seen in the London Metal Exchange. Africa's, Latin America's, Asia's mineral wealth on the LME that handles most of the world's non ferrous metals only allows the US dollar, the Sterling pound, the Japanese Yen, the Euro to buy Africa's, Latin America's, Asia's mineral wealth adding that wealth to the US dollar and the LME accepted Currencies. In 2015 the Chinese reminibi was added to the list while African, Latin America, and Asian currencies minus China and Japan are banned in this so called age of free markets and trade liberalisation. Trade liberalisation and free markets for whom? Is not the current economic structure favouring Europe which China has now joined through the LME? How far will China go? For China to be seen as a power it was through its US dollar reserve mountain?
But still China has to restructure global trade if it is to continue in its prosperity. One aspect China has to deal with are the IMF fixed cross ratesThe cross-rates appear day in and day out, in value terms, in many national currencies. This implies that national money markets have the same money market currency liquidity and trade volumes to produce the same cross rates as observed between Britain and the United State of America. On the February 16th 2017 the Indian Rupee traded at INR0.01495 per US$1, while the Sterling pound was at INR0.01199 per £1, giving a IMF cross rate of 1.24. The Japanese Yen on the same date stood at JPY¥0.008782 per US$1 and JPY¥0.007033 per £1 giving a cross rate of 1.24. The Canadian dollar also on the same day had CAD$0.76569 per US$1 and CAD$0.61420 per £1 to give 1.24 as it's IMF fixed cross rate. The Chinese Yuan against the US dollar stood at CNY¥0.145541 per US$1, and CNY¥0.116789 per £1, on the same day to give a IMF cross rate of 1.24. The Mexican Pesos, Brazilian Real, South African Rand, on the same day like all currencies across the world had 1.24 as the IMF cross rate fixed on the US dollar and Sterling pound.
The reality on the ground is that Zambia, Britain, Canada, India, Japan, China, Mexico nor the EU has the same level and volume of trade to give credibility to the IMF fixed cross-rates. In fact, the demand of the Euro or the Zambian Kwacha, Euro against the US dollar and the British Sterling pound and other African, Asian, Latin American currencies in relation to trade, within their money markets, gives exchange rates that are outside the IMF fixed cross-rate system. There is no competition here with IMF fixed cross rates. It must be noted that IMF MD Mr. M. Gutt at his Harvard University address on the 13th February 1948 noted that the indirect exchange rate of the US dollar to the Sterling pound was £1 per US$2.6 as US$1 equalled 600 Lire and £1 equalled 1,560 Lire, while the direct Sterling pound-US dollar rate stood at £1 per US$4. American found it cheaper buying British goods via Italy. The IMF ruled in favour of Britain as if Italy's money markets had the same inflows as London's money marketThe picture that emerges, in a free floating cross rate system for example, may see Country Z having trade surplus with Country J as it uses Yen to convert into Country Z’s currency the Kwachas to buy copper. This creates an exchange rate of ¥1,000 per K1 as Country J uses her Yen to purchase Kwachas, Country Z’s national currency. Country Z buys very little from Country J in relation to what Country Z exports to Country J. To this, Country J uses the purchased Country Z’s Kwachas to buy copper, against which Country Z accumulates Yen in its market as the Fund as noted in Article I of the Fund Agreement is, “to assist in the establishment of a [multilateral] system of payments in respect of current transactions between nations.” Although the exchange rate in Country Z for the US dollar, based on Country Z’s market liquidity may be K8 per US dollar, in Country J it may well be ¥200 per US dollar as Country J trades more with the United States than Country Z.
If a citizen in Country Z wanted to import an iphone from the United States pegged at US$500, it would be cheaper to buy the iphone via Country J, but this would in turn affect market liquidities in both Country Z and Country J money markets and hence exchange rates as exchange arbitrage operations occur. The US$500 iphone in Country Z in Kwacha terms based on its K8 per US dollar rate would cost K4,000, but through Country J the cost of the iphone would be ¥100,000 at ¥200 per US dollar, being through Country Z’s Kwacha/Yen exchange rate at ¥1,000 per K1 be worth K100, which is equal in US dollars based on Country Z’s US dollar/Kwacha exchange rate at US$12.50. At US$12.50 per iphone the United States would be on an equal footing to deal with another country called China with its cheap exports unless China’s cross-rates are lower in the countries China/United States/Country Z’s exchange rate configurations.
It would then be a question of quality and finding the best value in currency arbitrage operations.
The United States would still get its US$500 disregardless of the value step up or step down and the problem of external disequilibrium is addressed provided each country settled its exports in its national currencies.

For long, Europe has embodied the virtues of rules based order, democratic ideals & liberalism. Dealing with an unpredictable Trump who views NATO with disdain, leaves Europe vulnerable. Taken together with the fact that an assertive Putin prefers to wean away erstwhile East Bloc nations from EU, the challenge becomes considerable. In this scenario, China has been unwittingly placed in a sweet spot with its huge cash reserves. Cheque book diplomacy has replaced military prowess &old fashioned diplomacy.
Taking advantage of this emerging void, China seeks to assert its hegemonic imprint. Incorporating the renminbi in the IMF basket of currencies, creation of AIIB as a rival to the IMF/WB, the grandiose Belt & Road Initiative and pushing the idea of Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership are all building blocks towards formation of a China centric world order that would encompass entire world. Most nations are wary, though, of China's intentions considering its bullying & overbearing behaviour. Beijing believes in 'the end justifies the means'. Its approach towards the South China Sea is proof of such behaviour, a development that makes Europe squirm but powerless to act.
Europe faces onerous challenges even going to the extent of existential crisis over terrorism, immigration, refugees, somnolent economies, rise of nationalist sentiment and Brexit &its aftermath. Hence, Europe hardly has the time, money & resources to take on the mantle of guardian of the liberal world power.

Peter Schneider makes this point below. However, it is worth making again. The only real rules in Europe are first, "there are no rules" and second, "any rule can be trashed to protect the fantasy of Europe". The Dublin agreement rather specifically barred Merkel from opening Germany's doors to a migrant ("refugee" is fake news) flood. Did she heed Europe's rules? Not exactly. The Maastricht Treaty has all sorts of rules that have been casually discarded to preserve the Euro/European fantasy.

However, the real point is that all of the above is meaningless. China has already passed the U.S. in GDP. Soon China's GDP will be double the U.S. Eventually China's GDP will be 3/4 times the U.S. China's 21st Century dominance is a given. Of course, India will also pass the U.S. in GDP sooner or later.

Will China and India have any interest in a "Liberal World Order"? To ask the question is to answer it.

@Andy Crow
Ana Palacios’s them question is “what would a Chinese-led order look like?” What is your answer, Andy? Instead you complain about an economic system that Communist China is trying to learn from and that has brought you a better standard of living that the pre-capitalist age or communistic socialism could have. You complain that people don’t talk to one another as you can communicate with me over the internet, a world in which there is more people-to-people communication than ever before, which would not be the case had capitalism not given you that possibility. As any good relativist, you equate Communist China with democracies, not knowing that relativism makes impossible the discriminating between good and bad, better and worse, believing that all countries are equally good or bad, including equating the bad guys of Communist China, North Korea, Iran and Russia, with the good guys of Western countries. And from these bad guys, you think that America’s military strength, no matter that Barack Hussein Obama weakened it terribly, is too much to help protect the democratic world, notwithstanding Palacios’s woeful hope that Europe will step up and fill the shoes that protector America has filled for a century, especially for the United Kingdom. You, sadly, end your post with potshots at the world’s best country, America. America and the other 200+ countries of the world, like teenagers, have and have had many pimples, some removable, some leaving scars as reminders of earlier immature periods. America lost 600,000 of its own men extinguishing the blight of slavery during its Civil War 150 years ago, a good demonstration of America’s virtues and system of government that enables it to address and persist in addressing its problems. America guilty of genocide? That’s a new one. Andy, you doubt America’s history of greatness. Please read America’s Declaration of Independence to know its founding and enduring values, its Constitution that carefully frames how America is to implement those values, and become familiar with America’s glories as well as its pimples and scars that flourish in the education of students in many American and European schools and universities today. Finally, please try to learn about Communist China, who Mao Tse-tung was and of his willful Stalinistic starvation of millions of his citizens, what freedoms Communist China allows its citizens compared to your country, and wonder why Mao’s huge, fatherly, smiling face still, unchallenged and yet unchallengeable, looks over Beijing’s Tiananmen Square and in plain view of the Great Hall of the People, which is Communist China’s version of America’s Congress and the EU’s Parliament.

@Paul Martin
I agree with most of your post. However, I am not uncomfortable with the outlandish image of the hideous Mao that adorns the gate to the Forbidden City—home of the dictatorship that preceded the current dictatorship of Communist China. It is the ordinary person in Communist China who has not experienced a government ruled by the common man who should be taught to be uncomfortable. Every time the Mao is seen or referred to should light up a big red blinking warning sign for the free world. Mao the killer emblematizes today’s enemy of freedom, Communist China, a dictatorship that must be stood up to and put down. Hold hands with the devil and he will rip your arm off with an Oriental smile. I am not worried about a Communist China dominating the world, because it won’t. But the sooner Communist China is pushed back, the less will be the pain that the people of Communist China and the people of the world will suffer while this slow-but-sure aggressor is destroyed. Communist China has demonstrated in spades its rank intentions. In response, the world has curiously bent over backwards, no, fell over backward,s to accommodate the smiling arrogant glares, threats, and deeds from the children of Mao.

I do understand why you are uncomfortable with Mao's face still displayed on Tien Anmen square to be revered by the people, as we know that this man was a mass murdrer worse than Hitler and Stalin. I am anticommunist and it did make me uncomfortable too. But I thought about it and I came to the conclusion that the Chinese are lucky that their authorities did not embark on a course of repent and self hatred, as it was imposed upon European countries, with regards to Hitler, Mussolini, Pétain, and now it is starting also, even in Mrs Palacio's country, Spain, where statues of Franco are being removed. (I am not debating here about whether of not it is a god thing to remove the statue of general Lee from Charlottesville).
Consider the results in Europe. Europeans are made ashamed of their past. As a consequence they are debased, self hating, insecure, they are doomed to decadence and becoming victims of ruthless invaders who will wipe them out culturally, demographically and demographically from the map. European have reached such a degree of self hatred that they even rejoice at their being misgenated and bred out of existence by multiculturalism in what should be called by its name which is a genocide. Instead China is self confident, strong, ethnically homogeneous, and cherishes its national pride.

You may be worried about the consequences of a China dominated world. I do share your worry. But if it happens you shall have to remember that this is because a self confident people whose historical leaders have not been questioned in their legitimacy, whatever crimes they committed, will always win over a people whose past is being demonized morning, midday and night. Thus if the liberal west shall be ruled by authoritative Confucianism China, this will be as a direct consequence of the Chinese having kept Mao's picture on Tien AnMen square, and European having banned any memory of Hitler, Mussolini, Pétain and soon even Franco.

Mrs Palacio views American hegemony from her Spanish perspective as an element stability, because the US alliance helped Franco maintain his power stable, and then the EU, as a US protectorate, helped a smooth transition in Spain from Franco's authoritarianism to nowadays LGBTI's decadence. Mrs Palacio might have a somewhat different view on the US domination would she speak from Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Irak etc. In actuality the US is no way the guarantor of fairness and democracy, even less of stability or order. It is he most dangerous factor of desorder and unpredictability in world politics, and now with those insane neocons in power, it is the most dangerous and irresponsible war mongering might. Trump, with all his limitations, should be seen as an attempts by the American people to take control back from a tiny criminal clan of war mongers and imperialist gone crazy. And one can see that the US and global Establishment, of which Mrs Palacio is a subservient maid, is trying to empeach Trump and rigg his policy, because he is not bellicose enough.
I would agree to defend an order based on shared rules. But this would mean: the exact opposite of the US whimsical domination. US hegemony is and was until now, always, naked power, never the defense of shared rules.
Also, and especially in world politics, one can defend shared rules, but not liberalism. Because if one is defending liberalism, this is synonymous with endless wars, since liberalism will never prevail definitely.

The hypocrisy of Western liberals never ceases to amaze me (and just for the record I am a Western liberal). Just because the written constitutions of America and Europe protect individual freedoms, while the Chinese do not, we assume we live in a fairer society. Yet once we look at the results rather than our legal protections a very different picture emerges.

OF course China needs to improve treatment of its own citizens, and should be reminded of this responsibility. But what are we to say of a US Federal Government that ignores the health needs of millions of its own citizens just because they are poor, and has incarcerated almost 1% of its population. They also allowed American drug companies to hook millions of Americans on opioid pain killers for profit - a crime comparable with the British West India Company that sold opium into China in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Internationally the picture is no better. Of course China has overstepped its mark in the South China Sea, threatened Taiwan, and persued selfish oil interests in Vietnamese territory. Yet as far as I know the last time China invaded a sovereign territory was in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese war. By contrast the illegal invasion of Iraq by America in 2003 was entirely driven by the desire to control critical oil supplies in the Middle East. It has destabilised the entire region and rusulted in the deaths of at least 1 million arab citizens.

So where is the evidence that American leadership is superior to that of China. The most we can say is that since the second world war American hegemony has provided a degree of Global stability. The decline of American power brings uncertainty, which makes everyone nervous. But a new era is coming, whether we welcome it or not, and it is up to all countries to work together to make it more peaceful and more prosperous than what has gone before. And while Republicans control the US Government America poses a much greater obstacle to Global progress than China.

A rules-based system, if applied consistently, is of course an ideal. However, what worries me is how the author tries to portray the current order as ecumenical and sacrosanct. How could this be, when the very same Western countries that wrote the rules only chose to apply them selectively, maximising the benefits to them and ignoring the rest? In the end, I do not see how different is this order with the so-called "transaction-based" order, except for the veneer of liberalism.

+ 1
Left wondering when she was going to suggest :
America joining The European Union
Australia joining NATO
Canada joining The Euro.
So that when Russian tanks March into Europe, the three can defend Europe.
So that when Spain needs to create jobs for Spaniards, they can choose between the three.
So that when The ECB cannot print more Euros, Spain can choose Dollars instead.
But you are right - After Vietnam !!!

The Western-led rules-based international order is *not* inevitable, as you've rightly said. The only reason it stood and still stands is that it is represents the best geopolitical model yet.

The present system superceded the Cold War international order (a bipolar world order) where everyone lived minutes away from nuclear Armageddon.

The present international order is a big step forward. (Let's never walk backwards)

We don't need to worry about the United States being replaced as the global hegemon until at least 2060, regardless of which country has the largest GDP (as if that's everything) or the strongest growth rate, or the largest population.

Rather, the incumbent has plenty of things going for it -- plenty of experience at the post, it has by far the world's largest and most combat-experienced military (combat experience is orders of magnitude more important than size) and it is the de facto choice for that position even by countries that don't especially love the U.S. -- because everyone knows the United States well, they know what it is capable of, and they know what it won't do.

Nobody is going to mess with a winning formula, even if it doesn't always work in their favour.

Re: Repsol.

No doubt, this was a deliberate test of China's leadership by Western powers to see how China would handle the challenge of an EU company drilling an offshore well in Vietnamese waters -- but still near China.

The EU play was going to follow along these lines:
If China interfered, then we are to think of China as more of a 'Frontier economy' that just happened to strike it rich -- due to American largesse (Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy and since then almost unrestricted trade with the U.S.) and that it is to be thought of in Western capitals as harsh, overbearing, overly authoritarian (and a whole bunch of impact buzzwords that sound good on news bites whenever the West wants to put a country on the defensive) all of which is a modified form of Cold War thinking...

Disappointing from a moral perspective, but very logical (More on this later)

Anyways, that's only half the story of course: The other part of it was that *if China allowed such platforms near Chinese waters* then the Western countries could seize on that opportunity and build hundreds of them in that region -- with each new platform located closer to China's shores every passing year. "We have them surrounded!* (With drilling rigs)

And as every Navy fighter/bomber pilot knows, those are prime landing and refueling spots for fighter/bomber jets that can land vertically on the platform. If there are a thousand such platforms near China, that means that on any given day, a thousand fighter jets could be parked on those platforms, full of fuel, missiles and bombs, and ready to fly missions against Chinese targets at a moment's notice.

That would represent a serious threat to China were the geopolitical situation to deteriorate. But if the geopolitical situation stayed acceptable, then those platforms would be merely 'available' should they be needed.

All of which means, that with many platforms and (potentially) many fighter/bombers parked on them ready to fly at a moment's notice, the EU would have a strong lever to apply against China if it ever became aggressive or if it wouldn't bow to the wishes of the larger international community on any significant issue.

Having that many fighter/bomber parking spots so close to China would have the effect of tempering every decision of Chinese policymakers.

As I said above: Disappointing that holdover Cold War thinking still has a place in the world, but it is logical from a certain point of view.

Such thinking is the view of a bloc (the Western bloc) that still doesn't trust China at the controls. It's the thinking of a bloc that appreciates American global leadership and isn't yet ready to accept Chinese leadership. And it's the thinking of a bloc that feels they need to 'cover their bets' just in case something goes wrong with China.

It's the thinking of a bloc that doesn't have a better plan than falling back to Cold War thinking (I hope I'm wrong on that) which would be extremely disappointing indeed. For it surely means that we're back on the Armageddon train and this time WE WILL be riding it to its final destination -- Nuclear Armageddon.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong on that last point.

Perhaps the multi-drilling-platform-plan is the 'Plan B' and a dramatic increase in diplomacy and multilateralism is the 'Plan A' here.

And if that ramped-up diplomacy and engagement with and by China is accepted by developed nations, then the 'Plan B' is merely the lever by which China is lured/compelled to take part in further dialogue. If that's the plan, I enthusiastically embrace it!!!

As China's power continues to grow -- the other world powers need to know that they can deal with China (a positive!) -- instead of being 'dealt with' by China (in the negative sense of the term)

They need to know if there's going to be 'give and take' -- or if China intends to dictate how the world will operate.

They feel the need to ascertain whether China intends on benevolent rule or malevolent rule.

And they need to know whether China can be cowed into submission (as a last resort) if it chooses a policy with negative ramifications for the other powers.

>>>The one thing the existing world order doesn't want is an aloof, dictatorial and malevolent #2 global power that's on its way to becoming the aloof, dictatorial and malevolent #1 global power.<<<

China's power will continue to grow relative to the rest of the world, even if it doesn't fully replace the United States in every metric until 2060.

The developed nations need to know what to expect from China, how it will engage/not engage -- and how it intends to handle slights, missteps, protests, prevarications, provocations and outright confrontations.

They already know what to expect from the United States through decades of experience, but China so far, has been reticent to show its hand which has unnerved Western powers. (Does China have a secret agenda? Is that why they keep their cards so close to their vest? Should we stop trading with them now? etc.)

A lack of communication and broad engagement with the West and other developed nations will prove to be China's nemesis and *Job Number One in China* must now be to formulate positions and to effectively communicate with developed nations.

As in the case of the United States over the past 2-centuries (I'm taking a literary license here to make my point) it *almost* didn't matter what rules or policies the U.S. adopted (which policies affect many countries) because it displayed plenty of 'give and take' and it engaged in dialogue at every level. (Do you see what I'm trying to say?)

The United States succeeded and continues to succeed as a global hegemon because it's a benevolent superpower and it cares to inform the world community about its intentions and policies in advance -- and is willing to listen to suggestions, it will entertain delays to potentially disruptive policies and it will allow comment and even criticism of its policies.

A rising global power that doesn't match that criteria is doomed to failure from the start.

Whether China wants it or not and whether it is convenient for China to do so or not, China must profoundly engage with the international community and prove by its actions that it's a benevolent rising superpower (although different in look and feel as compared to the American superpower -- nobody begrudges them that!) and not a malevolent threat to the international order.

If China rises to meet this challenge (and it is very capable of doing so if it chooses) then China will be accepted for what it is; The rising superpower that will one day surpass the United States in many metrics -- and most importantly -- will do so with the support of the international community including the U.S.A.

If China fails to meet this challenge, every advantage that China presently enjoys will disappear one by one -- and even faster than that in the case of frequent malevolent actions by China.

Sorry China, but all eyes are on you. The world community needs to know that you'll be an engaged partner, not a remote dictatorial nation with a mean streak.

In the absence of constant high level communications from China about its plans and policies, that is what the international community will assume. (Very unfortunately)

>>>Were I the president of China, I would consider this invitation (for that is what it is) the greatest opportunity for the country since Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing to invite China into the world community of nations.<<<

I would see it as the best possible time to start with a completely clean sheet of paper, to write out my best hopes and aspirations for my country and for ongoing relations with the international community and an opportunity to show that my intentions are borne of benevolence but with an eye (of course) to always protecting my homeland.

There is no place for hyper-sensitivity among superpowers, nor even among middle powers. Nations will criticize superpowers, nations will applaud superpowers, nations will ignore sometimes very well-meant gestures by superpowers -- that's just how nations are. It matters not.

What matters are the intentions of that superpower and the level of communications that superpower conveys. That's everything. The actions of that superpower are secondary (although still important) and work to cement ongoing relations.

I hope President Xi sees this for what it is; An invitation by Western and developed nations to fully engage with the world community and to fulfill the role of benevolent superpower and to understand at a deep level the concern felt by smaller countries as China rises to a level never before seen in our civilization.

The only solution for China is perfect and innumerable communications with other powers, with those communications (only) goal of convincing world powers that China continues on course to be a benevolent superpower for all time.

As Palacio implies, a Communist China as world supremo would turn that world upside down. We must remember that “China” is Communist China. Communist China is violent and dictatorial. Communist China is as uncompromising in its push for dominance as is Islam. Its Communist culture is embedded in its historical Imperial government, a tiny head governing masses of people by forceful decree. Communist China punishes its people, whether Liu Xiaobo on the mainland or students in Hong Kong, for “crimes” that Westerners scratch their heads over, but for some reason don’t wretch over. Communist China thereby cows its people, and takes full advantage of a people who culturally, over millennia, are quite used to submitting submissive to its dictatorship. The Communist China unit is ideologically driven, patient, muscular and is gradually ensuring its sustainability. The West is none of these. What is to be done?

" The Communist China unit is ideologically driven, patient, muscular and is gradually ensuring its sustainability. The West is none of these."

Yeah, right. Capitalism isn't an ideology then? So that's OK.

What's to be done? People actually need to talk to each other and try to understand that we all come from 'different places'. I don't see China as any sort of Utopia, but I don't see utopias anywhere else either and certainly not in the US; and the EU is a very mixed bag and far from homogeneous.

Estimates that the US has the military weight of the next five or six nations in total indicate a nation which is deeply psychologically insecure. Taking the long view America is very much the new kid on the block, the land of the free built on genocide and slavery flexing its muscles, financially and militarily with all the subtlety of a hormone infused teenager.

The "EU" has completely lost its credibility. Not a rules-based approach but the permanent breach of rules is in the "EU"'s institutional DNA (Schengen agreement, Dublin agreement, Maastricht treaty etc.). The "EU" institutions only stick to rules if it suits them, otherwise they switch to ad hoc transactions and raw power relations (like in 2010 when the bailouts were decided or in 2015 when Greece was kept in the euro against all rules).

And does "liberal world order" mean that you should better look behind you now and then to make sure that you are not run over by a car?